i'm not sure how this is more scandalous than the fact that the simpsons episode featuring the WTC is still in syndication. and i think it would be scandalous if that episode wasn't still in syndication.

the801:i'm not sure how this is more scandalous than the fact that the simpsons episode featuring the WTC is still in syndication. and i think it would be scandalous if that episode wasn't still in syndication.

FormlessOne:NobleHam: Who cares? Does the character on the show molest little children? No? Do kids in the UK have any idea who Jimmy Savile is or what he did? I hope not.

Then it's just a comical mistake.

This, basically. The episode is about 12 years old, and was just run in rotation. Deserving of a dopeslap? Maybe. Deserving of all the pearl-clutching going on in that article? No.

Yes and no. This isn't just about Savile being able to sneak under the radar as a pedo for decades; this is a continuing tale of the BBC being rather inept at handling the matter. Since Newsnight pulled a report on Savile at the same time that two tribute programs were aired at the same time. Considering how much flak Auntie has taken in the last 12 months over this, you would think they'd take a moment and make sure their programming didn't give people a reason to mock them again, especially childrens' programming.

All that said, I look forward to the first episode of the next Top Gear season. I'm sure Clarkson will unload both barrels on everybody.

the801:i'm not sure how this is more scandalous than the fact that the simpsons episode featuring the WTC is still in syndication. and i think it would be scandalous if that episode wasn't still in syndication.

[static.disclose.tv image 361x303]

That simpsons episode edits out the WTC scene (I think Homer goes up WTC to pee?) when shown in syndication.

If it wasn't show by the BBC, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but as the BBC and how they've handled the whole thing is the biggest source of outrage, the fact that they're the ones to show it makes it all the more in bad taste funnier.

And yes, in the UK EVERYONE knows who Jimmy Saville is, even the little kids, especially the little kids.

UNC_Samurai:FormlessOne: NobleHam: Who cares? Does the character on the show molest little children? No? Do kids in the UK have any idea who Jimmy Savile is or what he did? I hope not.

Then it's just a comical mistake.

This, basically. The episode is about 12 years old, and was just run in rotation. Deserving of a dopeslap? Maybe. Deserving of all the pearl-clutching going on in that article? No.

Yes and no. This isn't just about Savile being able to sneak under the radar as a pedo for decades; this is a continuing tale of the BBC being rather inept at handling the matter. Since Newsnight pulled a report on Savile at the same time that two tribute programs were aired at the same time. Considering how much flak Auntie has taken in the last 12 months over this, you would think they'd take a moment and make sure their programming didn't give people a reason to mock them again, especially childrens' programming.

All that said, I look forward to the first episode of the next Top Gear season. I'm sure Clarkson will unload both barrels on everybody.

Perhaps - I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but I am saying that perhaps the reaction is a bit strong. It's not as if BBC has decided to launch a four-hour Jimmy Savile retrospective.They aired an episode of a children's show, filmed more than a decade ago, that had a character which, for one skit, loosely parodied Jimmy Savile. Like I said, it's probably deserving of a dopeslap, but not much more than that.

You can't tell me that this pederast managed to rape everything that moved for over half a century and yet the BBC was completely oblivious to it!

BULL

FARKING

SH*T!!

I'm suspecting that the "the Beeb" knew about this sh*t all along. Hell, some BBC execs and stars may have diddled some kids of their own that were provided pre-groomed by Jimmy. They just waited for the little creep to die off first so that he can't name names if put into the dock.

I sure hope Jim kept a secret journal somewhere that do name those names (as insurance) and Jim'll posthumously fix some Pedobears in high places.

NobleHam:Who cares? Does the character on the show molest little children? No? Do kids in the UK have any idea who Jimmy Savile is or what he did? I hope not.

Then it's just a comical mistake.

Everyone knows who Jimmy Savile is. Everyone knew before the scandal broke. He is a very distinctive character. It's a pity he turned out to be a nonce as it's completely destroyed parodies of him. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, did a Jimmy Savile impression at one time or another.

Gordon Bennett:NobleHam: Who cares? Does the character on the show molest little children? No? Do kids in the UK have any idea who Jimmy Savile is or what he did? I hope not.

Then it's just a comical mistake.

Everyone knows who Jimmy Savile is. Everyone knew before the scandal broke. He is a very distinctive character. It's a pity he turned out to be a nonce as it's completely destroyed parodies of him. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, did a Jimmy Savile impression at one time or another.

Spare me your outrage.This is like the efforts to remove every instance of the WTC after 9/11 from every form of media.

Pretty much this.

My first impulse is to wish some painful fate upon the people making trouble over such things. They are pests, and they get in the way of the life that people should be getting on with in the wake of the deeds of bad men, and they deserve to be punished for compounding the evils that bad men bring into the world.

But, you know, I just can't think of anything that could be done to the sort of person who who could be outraged over the mere appearance of now-destroyed buildings or disgraced celebrities in television reruns -- at least nothing that could make them suffer worse. Life must be Hell for people that delicate.

Spare me your outrage.This is like the efforts to remove every instance of the WTC after 9/11 from every form of media.

Pretty much this.

My first impulse is to wish some painful fate upon the people making trouble over such things. They are pests, and they get in the way of the life that people should be getting on with in the wake of the deeds of bad men, and they deserve to be punished for compounding the evils that bad men bring into the world.

But, you know, I just can't think of anything that could be done to the sort of person who who could be outraged over the mere appearance of now-destroyed buildings or disgraced celebrities in television reruns -- at least nothing that could make them suffer worse. Life must be Hell for people that delicate.

Pretending that a perfectly fine, normal building never existed solely because it was destroyed in a terrorist attack and/or being offended by the fact that images of said building appear in programmes made before it was destroyed is NOT the same as being offended by a children's TV show broadcast today featuring references to a man who we now know used his status as a children's tv host to abuse children.

If you cannot see a difference you are clearly not playing with a full deck.